Do you believe in God?

[UKMikey]

Same things as the question with the chicken tho, who was first, the chicken or the egg ?

Let's face it... nobody came until the rooster did.

It was the egg by the way. Insects lay eggs and they were around long before chickens.

 

[Scaff]

Same things as the question with the chicken tho, who was first, the chicken or the egg ?

The egg, that's quite clear, evolution has settled this one long ago.

 

[TheCracker]

What I found unfair is that I can't be buried the way I want when I die, I believe in the circle of life and for me my life would be fullfilled if when I die I can go back to the earth and help create more life, being maggots or just food for plants, that's how life work, not something made up by someone somewhere. Burrying people in a coffin where they wont perpetuate the circle of life is sad and terrible thing western civilization are doing, it's even worst when you burn people. Because yeah, you give nothing back to the earth after using it's ressource all your life.

I'm not sure that burial of any kind is better for the planet then cremation. Given that approx 120million people die every year and roughly 40% of them are buried - that's 48m burials a year - which is conservatively 100 square kilometers of graves. That's a lot of real estate put aside that could probably be used more constructively towards creating more life on the planet.

 

[TexRex]

The concern about cremation is almost certainly about harm, but you're technically correct, that the stated concern was about not benefitting.

I think both are reasonable concerns if viewed from a naturalist perspective. There's the environmentalist concern, to which you seem to be alluding, about combustion pollutants and particulate expulsion from the cremation process, but organic decomposition, while resulting in the emission of methane, does serve to benefit the natural environment in the longer term and thus satisfies the naturalist concern.

I don't personally have any belief in an afterlife that necessitates certain practices for laying my body to rest but I do have some admittedly irrational concerns about what will happen to my body after I die. Because I'd like my body to be a benefit, I've opted to not prescribe cremation and instead have made clear my desire for a natural sea burial that also puts at ease most of those aforementioned irrational concerns.

Honestly, I'd kind of like to say goodbye to loved ones and go on a long hike during which I collapse one last time. Of course I have no desire at present to end my life before my time and the only thing I can foresee compelling such a desire would also render that supposed hike impossible. It's just my ideal death; I'm deep in the woods and I become one with nature without unnatural intervention.

Regardless, of all of the trash that doesn't benefit the environment that we leave behind, the body is a tiny fraction.

Yep. I don't have anything to add here.

Plant a tree if you want to benefit the environment, don't worry about your corpse.

 

[Danoff]

Sure, we can. I'm saying it's not something worth fretting. You can do so much more for the environment while you're alive than in death.

 

[Duke]

And my question was this: Why would that image make someone question the nature of reality?

 

[Imari]

Life could appear spontaneously without a creator sure, the whole universe though?

Sure. Why not?

Is there supposed to be some sort of gotcha in the idea of something very large existing without a creator? As if it's very bigness somehow mandates that it must have been created, even though you're willing to accept spontaneity from smaller things?

 

[Ghost Lap]

Sure. Why not?

Is there supposed to be some sort of gotcha in the idea of something very large existing without a creator? As if it's very bigness somehow mandates that it must have been created, even though you're willing to accept spontaneity from smaller things?

I just can't wrap my head around the physical universe coming into existence without the need for a creator, a creator that transcends the laws to which our universe is bound to, that's where the "blind faith" part comes into play I guess.

 

[Dotini]

And my question was this: Why would that image make someone question the nature of reality?

When people contemplate the nature of reality and/or the existence of a creator, they often think in terms of meaning and purpose. So when an image of almost infinite vastness and complexity is contemplated, it's typical to ponder what that vastness signifies in terms of meaning and purpose. Is it redundant? Is it excessive? Is it too vast or inchoate to serve any understandable meaning and purpose which is directly relevant to the human condition? I say no, it is quite meaningful and relevant to the human condition, and we should talk about it.

Spoiler: I Know There is an Answer

 

[evldave333]

When people contemplate the nature of reality and/or the existence of a creator, they often think in terms of meaning and purpose. So when an image of almost infinite vastness and complexity is contemplated, it's typical to ponder what that vastness signifies in terms of meaning and purpose. Is it redundant? Is it excessive? Is it too vast or inchoate to serve any understandable meaning and purpose which is directly relevant to the human condition? I say no, it is quite meaningful and relevant to the human condition, and we should talk about it.

It gives some kind of context, we are mayflies on a cosmological timescale briefly achieving a bubble of consciousness that tries to define meaning in an essentially chaotic system. I think the need to believe in god is derived from seeing our death's coming nothing more, reality seems wonderous enough of itself. We seem to be self replicating adaptive machines, but this could be inevitable due to chemistry, time and almost infinite space for it to happen in. Best bet if it's essentially unknowable is be as happy as you can for the brief time you have your experience. I think freestyling your belief system is the best way to go only trusting the seeker rather than those who tell you they have found (because we are all in the same boat completely unsure). No point in adhering to a set of rules imposed by religions, just be the best version of yourself and if your choices don't negatively effect anyone... go for it before the rug is pulled from under you.

 

[Danoff]

Life could appear spontaneously without a creator sure, the whole universe though?

We know, and it is generally accepted among people who consider evidence, that the universe came from a miniscule beginning. It appears vast from our perspective today, just as our bodies or the earth would appear vast from the perspective of a microbe in your eyelash. But our universe has not always been so vast, it was at one point much smaller than your body (or the earth). All of that is understood.

So when you're contemplating the vastness of the universe, add to the awe and inspiration the idea that at one point the universe would have fit on the tip of your finger. It makes the whole thing that much more bind-blowingly amazing, but it also recasts your question about where it came from.

Reality appears to be made of solid, tangible stuff. But reality is actually composed of potential, probability. We observe our universe taking the form of all possible states in their corresponding probabilities as shaped by the interaction between that potential and the potentials around it. This is quantum mechanics, and it is a necessary understanding of reality in order to properly understand what we observe. To the extent possible (and the extent was great at the beginning of our universe), our reality takes the form of all possible states.

 

[Dotini]

It gives some kind of context, we are mayflies on a cosmological timescale briefly achieving a bubble of consciousness that tries to define meaning in an essentially chaotic system. I think the need to believe in god is derived from seeing our death's coming nothing more, reality seems wonderous enough of itself. We seem to be self replicating adaptive machines, but this could be inevitable due to chemistry, time and almost infinite space for it to happen in. Best bet if it's essentially unknowable is be as happy as you can for the brief time you have your experience. I think freestyling your belief system is the best way to go only trusting the seeker rather than those who tell you they have found (because we are all in the same boat completely unsure). No point in adhering to a set of rules imposed by religions, just be the best version of yourself and if your choices don't negatively effect anyone... go for it before the rug is pulled from under you.

Nihilism. The great tragedy of the modern age.

 

[Danoff]

Nihilism. The great tragedy of the modern age.

if your choices don't negatively effect anyone... go for it

This is not nihilism.

 

[evldave333]

Nihilism. The great tragedy of the modern age.

Something could tend the light at the end of the tunnel, but its essentially unknowable. I think faith is amazing for those who can attain it, a sweet positive feedback loop indeed. All you know is you don't know though... im firmly on the fence. Ive only prayed once in my adult life for my friend to be saved from his kidney failure suffering, he got a transplant shortly after... coincidence or otherwise I simply don't know.

 

[TexRex]

I'm a firm believer that engaging @Dotini is a fruitless endeavor fraught with frustration, but at the same time the ****ing garbage absolutely should be countered.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Is there a scientific explanation for deja vu in which you're absolutely certain you've seen something before? It's happened quite a few times in my life (and I posted about it years ago) but the wiki article doesn't give a satisfactory answer since the most prominent one I can remember is being with a friend and someone I hadn't met before and I knew exactly what they would say and how they would move. Seeing the stranger seems to invalidate the theories put forward in the wiki. These experiences are probably only like 10 seconds or so in duration and only happen maybe once or twice a year now but I've always wondered what science could say about them. I thought about maybe alternative universes in quantum physics but I think they exist at the same time so that wouldn't explain how the scenes have already "played out"..

 

[Dotini]

Something could tend the light at the end of the tunnel, but its essentially unknowable. I think faith is amazing for those who can attain it, a sweet positive feedback loop indeed. All you know is you don't know though... im firmly on the fence. Ive only prayed once in my adult life for my friend to be saved from his kidney failure suffering, he got a transplant shortly after... coincidence or otherwise I simply don't know.

I too lack any faith. But I believe there is a purpose and a reason for life, and that is to have experiences that are shared with other conscious beings.

Is there a scientific explanation for deja vu in which you're absolutely certain you've seen something before? It's happened quite a few times in my life (and I posted about it years ago) but the wiki article doesn't give a satisfactory answer since the most prominent one I can remember is being with a friend and someone I hadn't met before and I knew exactly what they would say and how they would move. Seeing the stranger seems to invalidate the theories put forward in the wiki. These experiences are probably only like 10 seconds or so in duration and only happen maybe once or twice a year now but I've always wondered what science could say about them. I thought about maybe alternative universes in quantum physics but I think they exist at the same time so that wouldn't explain how the scenes have already "played out"..

Deja vu probably comes under the realm of research of unexplained phenomena. There are privately funded labs here and there studying such phenomena since the 1930's. Much more recently the study of adverse medical effects of unexplained phenomena on humans has come under the purview (as but one of several aspects) of the US multi-agency study of UAP. Comprehensive reports are issued to the Congress on a regular basis, both classified and unclassified.

 

[evldave333]

Is there a scientific explanation for deja vu in which you're absolutely certain you've seen something before? It's happened quite a few times in my life (and I posted about it years ago) but the wiki article doesn't give a satisfactory answer since the most prominent one I can remember is being with a friend and someone I hadn't met before and I knew exactly what they would say and how they would move. Seeing the stranger seems to invalidate the theories put forward in the wiki. These experiences are probably only like 10 seconds or so in duration and only happen maybe once or twice a year now but I've always wondered what science could say about them. I thought about maybe alternative universes in quantum physics but I think they exist at the same time so that wouldn't explain how the scenes have already "played out"..

It makes you wonder if consciousness is somehow entangled like in string theory, maybe de ja vu is a resonance point in an otherwise linear experience. The likely hood is its a false positive from your synapses, having tinkered with psychedelics I know my consciousness is not directly aligned with reality more of a lens so maybe you perceived de ja vu rather than it being a thing.

 

[Dotini]

It makes you wonder if consciousness is somehow entangled like in string theory, maybe de ja vu is a resonance point in an otherwise linear experience. The likely hood is its a false positive from your synapses, having tinkered with psychedelics I know my consciousness is not directly aligned with reality more of a lens so maybe you perceived de ja vu rather than it being a thing.

Numerous mainstream articles (e.g., Scientific American) as well as reviewed research is published on the link between consciousness and QM. Some QM researchers are saying reality is essentially mental. A few argue that consciousness is primary and gives rise to physical reality, not the other way round.

 

[TexRex]

Codswallop.

 

[Liquid]

I'm a firm believer that engaging @Dotini is a fruitless endeavor fraught with frustration, but at the same time the ****ing garbage absolutely should be countered.

Boredom in retirement is hard to live with.

 

[evldave333]

Numerous mainstream articles as well as reviewed research is published on the link between consciousness and QM. Some QM researchers are saying reality is essentially mental. A few argue that consciousness is primary and gives rise to physical reality, not the other way round.

Probably a false positive but my psychedelic experiences suggested interconnectivity on a fundamental level, once the ego dissolves you don't become the quantum fizz you realise that you were quantum fizz. Consciousness is an attempt at recognising reality, which is too wide for our perception limits. When you look at it biologically we are incredibly limited most of the radiation spectrum is out of our perceptual reach and what we can see is narrow band reality with a time delay. I don't buy the argument of consciousness giving rise to reality, however intention can be manifest through action, and the universe seems to offer infinities for creativity.

 

[Dotini]

Probably a false positive but my psychedelic experiences suggested interconnectivity on a fundamental level, once the ego dissolves you don't become the quantum fizz you realise that you were quantum fizz. Consciousness is an attempt at recognising reality, which is too wide for our perception limits. When you look at it biologically we are incredibly limited most of the radiation spectrum is out of our perceptual reach and what we can see is narrow band reality with a time delay. I don't buy the argument of consciousness giving rise to reality, however intention can be manifest through action, and the universe seems to offer infinities for creativity.

I agree that human consciousness, as a rule, does not directly create physical matter. But I very much like the argument that the universe, and firstly its underlying physics, was created from a higher dimension. That higher dimension may be referred to as non physical, i.e., a higher dimension of consciousness. It might be called cosmic consciousness, or god. The purpose and reason for the universe may be understood to be to generate experiences from all living things which are shared by the non-physical higher consciousness.

 

[Danoff]

That higher dimension may be referred to as non physical, i.e., a higher dimension of consciousness.

i.e. is doing some really heavy lifting there.

There's no evidence to suggest that a "higher dimension" created the universe.

 

[Dotini]

i.e. is doing some really heavy lifting there.

There's no evidence to suggest that a "higher dimension" created the universe.

There's no evidence to prove that god, or anyone or anything else created the universe. But there's loads of evidence to suggest
there is a higher realm of consciousness that we touch after death and in altered states of consciousness during life. There is also evidence to suggest that our consciousness is being remotely monitored, at least on certain occasions. if not around the clock.

 

[Danoff]

There's no evidence to prove that god, or anyone or anything else created the universe. But there's loads of evidence to suggest
there is a higher realm of consciousness that we touch after death and in altered states of consciousness during life. There is also evidence to suggest that our consciousness is being remotely monitored, at least on certain occasions. if not around the clock.

For evidence to "suggest" something, it needs to actually be consistent with that theory and not consistent with prevailing or simpler theories that have even more evidence in support. So, no I do not agree with you about any of that except that there's no proof of god.

For example, if you found horse-shaped footprints, you would not claim that it's evidence to "suggest" the existence of a unicorn. Because the evidence in fact suggests a prevailing and simpler theory, which is a horse.

 

[TexRex]

For evidence to "suggest" something, it needs to actually be consistent with that theory and not consistent with prevailing or simpler theories that have even more evidence in support. So, no I do not agree with you about any of that except that there's no proof of god.

For example, if you found horse-shaped footprints, you would not claim that it's evidence to "suggest" the existence of a unicorn. Because the evidence in fact suggests a prevailing and simpler theory, which is a horse.

"Circumstances that themselves don't directly refute the notion" is probably more appropriate than "evidence to suggest"...but that doesn't do the narrative any favors.

 

[evldave333]

I agree that human consciousness, as a rule, does not directly create physical matter. But I very much like the argument that the universe, and firstly its underlying physics, was created from a higher dimension. That higher dimension may be referred to as non physical, i.e., a higher dimension of consciousness. It might be called cosmic consciousness, or god. The purpose and reason for the universe may be understood to be to generate experiences from all living things which are shared by the non-physical higher consciousness.

It's interesting to ponder what could be beyond our perception, I find these ideas interesting if unproven as they better reflect the current paradigm of human experience / knowledge. I quite like the idea of singularities being their own separate universes each with their own physics and own singularities/universes and down the infinite rabbit hole you go. Fun cans to kick around these notions even if there is no evidence and are more imagination than anything. The main thing is to cease the day in our true reality as tomorrow is not promised regardless of your beliefs. Best to enjoy what is in front of you, the rest will take care of itself, the only real blasphemy is to waste time when it cant be bought or traded. Saying that though... I do quite like squandering my time watching the secret of skin walker ranch that anomaly there makes my imagination fizz lol

 

[Dotini]

It's interesting to ponder what could be beyond our perception, I find these ideas interesting if unproven as they better reflect the current paradigm of human experience / knowledge. I quite like the idea of singularities being their own separate universes each with their own physics and own singularities/universes and down the infinite rabbit hole you go. Fun cans to kick around these notions even if there is no evidence and are more imagination than anything. The main thing is to cease the day in our true reality as tomorrow is not promised regardless of your beliefs. Best to enjoy what is in front of you, the rest will take care of itself, the only real blasphemy is to waste time when it cant be bought or traded. Saying that though... I do quite like squandering my time watching the secret of skin walker ranch that anomaly there makes my imagination fizz lol

Skinwalker Ranch, indeed. There is important news. According to the latest, the scientists involved are consulting with SETI with regard to following the formally established protocols involving contact/communication with extraterrestrial intelligence.

 

[TexRex]

Aaaaand back to ****ing aliens.